34

HISTORY 01? EXGLAND.

CHAP.

XI.

its:).

priety of this course be questioned by any person who approvedof the Revolution. But the Revolution was now over: thevacancy of the throne had been supplied: the Houses weresitting: the law w'as in full force; and it became necessaryimmediately to decide to what revenue the Government wasentitled.

Nobody denied that all the lands and hereditaments of theCrown had passed with the Crown to the new Sovereigns.Nobody denied that all duties which had been granted to theCrown for a fixed term of years might be constitutionally exactedtill that term should expire. But large revenues had beensettled by Parliament on James for life; and whether what hadbeen settled on James for life could-, while he lived, be claimedby William and Mary, was a question about xvhich opinionswere divided.

Holt, Treby, Pollexfen, indeed all the eminent Whiglawyers, Somers excepted, held that these revenues had beengranted to the late King, in his political capacity, but for hisnatural life, and ought therefore, as long as he continued todrag on his existence in a strange land, to be paid to Williamand Mary. It appears from a very concise and unconnectedreport of the debate that Somers dissented from this doctrine.His opinion was that, if the Act of Parliament which had im-posed the duties in question was to be construed according tothe spirit, the word life must be understood to mean reign, andthat therefore the term for which the grant had been made hadexpired. This w r as surely the sound opinion: for it w'as plainlyirrational to treat the interest of James in this grant as at once athing annexed to his person and a thing annexed to his office;to say in one breath that the merchants of London and Bristolmust pay money because he was naturally alive, and that hissuccessors must receive that money because he was politicallydefunct. The House was decidedly with Somers. The members